Can the art of storytelling and the author-story analogy help us reimagine the relationship between freewill and predestination? An adventure in narrative theodicy!
Thank you caleb; ts a very helpful analogy. The way we relate to each other within the story is qualitatively different from how the Author relates to the story. I wonder if you could clarify the analogy so it doesn't make God the foundational cause/author of evil? Or at least distinguishes the way in which God causes good v how He causes evil (if He does)
Good question. So one of the ways in which the analogy breaks down is that God gives us being; we exist in ourselves in a more real way than simply characters in a story do. So there’s a real distinction between what God allows us to do by virtue of our creaturely narrative freedom, and actions that he himself does directly. All evil is a matter of that indirect, secondary causation.
This does me that there’s a sense in which God is still the foundational cause as Author, but he is never an agent of evil in terms of his own actions as a character within his own drama (which is what I take to be what is being said in terms of the traditional formulation that “God is not the Author of evil”.) Does that seem a meaningful distinction to you?
Thanks for the reply Caleb! I can see its a real distinction (God being a foundational cause of evil vs God actually commiting evil). This distinction "gets God of the hook" but nonetheless if we stick to the Author/story analogy, Whilst Tolkein himself isn't physically forging a ring in the depths of Mount doom, seeking to exert power and control over Middle Earth, Sauron and his actions are a product of Tolkein's imagination. This is where the analogy gets troublesome; could evil in the sense described above be a product of God's imagination just as Sauron and all his actions are a product of Tolkein's imagination
That's very important yes, but how do you think that resolves the debate? I don't think there's any question among Christians *that* we have a relationship with God, the debate is over *what the nature* of the relationship is, especially how temporal creatures relate to an eternal Creator.
But yes from a Christian perspective the debate is resolved by a both/and; free choice and ordained by God.
Much like the Incarnation. Christ is both fully God and fully human. Using this theological model, we can say the relationship between choice/ordained is both fully free will and fully determined.
Yes, the Incarnation is a good model for integrating tensions that are both/and. God is both infinite and personal, and the incarnation brings the personal side near to us.
Love this, Caleb! I'll be hand-carrying my copy of Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl to HMUK. It's my favorite nonfiction book!
I'm concerned that I've mislaid my signed copy somewhere! I've got the ebook too, but it's not the same...
The one I have now is my second copy, and it's replete with highlights
Thank you caleb; ts a very helpful analogy. The way we relate to each other within the story is qualitatively different from how the Author relates to the story. I wonder if you could clarify the analogy so it doesn't make God the foundational cause/author of evil? Or at least distinguishes the way in which God causes good v how He causes evil (if He does)
Good question. So one of the ways in which the analogy breaks down is that God gives us being; we exist in ourselves in a more real way than simply characters in a story do. So there’s a real distinction between what God allows us to do by virtue of our creaturely narrative freedom, and actions that he himself does directly. All evil is a matter of that indirect, secondary causation.
This does me that there’s a sense in which God is still the foundational cause as Author, but he is never an agent of evil in terms of his own actions as a character within his own drama (which is what I take to be what is being said in terms of the traditional formulation that “God is not the Author of evil”.) Does that seem a meaningful distinction to you?
Thanks for the reply Caleb! I can see its a real distinction (God being a foundational cause of evil vs God actually commiting evil). This distinction "gets God of the hook" but nonetheless if we stick to the Author/story analogy, Whilst Tolkein himself isn't physically forging a ring in the depths of Mount doom, seeking to exert power and control over Middle Earth, Sauron and his actions are a product of Tolkein's imagination. This is where the analogy gets troublesome; could evil in the sense described above be a product of God's imagination just as Sauron and all his actions are a product of Tolkein's imagination
The free will debate is resolved by realising that we are in a relationship with God.
That's very important yes, but how do you think that resolves the debate? I don't think there's any question among Christians *that* we have a relationship with God, the debate is over *what the nature* of the relationship is, especially how temporal creatures relate to an eternal Creator.
I was more talking from a philosophical position.
But yes from a Christian perspective the debate is resolved by a both/and; free choice and ordained by God.
Much like the Incarnation. Christ is both fully God and fully human. Using this theological model, we can say the relationship between choice/ordained is both fully free will and fully determined.
Yes, the Incarnation is a good model for integrating tensions that are both/and. God is both infinite and personal, and the incarnation brings the personal side near to us.